Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

[groverat]

Has anyone else read this?

I am happy to see that Dawkins has started a campaign of actively evangelizing atheist thought, and I am even happier to see an ID movement completely incapable of mounting an adequate response to a full-out assault on their bizarre philosophy.

I am more curious, however, as to whether or not anyone has actually read the book. I have and I loved it (for the most part).

[kdraper]

I'm reading it now. Good read so far.

[MarcUK]

Dawkins is pissing into the wind.

[midwinter]

I'm reading Sam Harris, first.

[Kishan]

Am currently reading it. A pleasure to read such lucid prose from a scientific mind. I have mixed feelings about how uncompromising he is. I would like to think that there is room in an open mind for spiritualism as well as critical thought. That he so heavily criticizes "Rock of Ages" is another example. What exactly is the problem with the idea of non overlapping magistrata if applied honestly? I am looking forward to the remainder of the book and seeing how he fully addresses these issues.

[hardeeharhar]

Dawkins is pissing into the wind.

I hope he realizes he could be getting good money for that precious precious urine.

[JupiterOne]

Can't wait to read it. (Didn't he use to host Family Feud? ;) )

[MarcUK]

I hope he realizes he could be getting good money for that precious precious urine.

Indeed :lol: we should pass his details on to Yukata.

But anyway, i havn't read the book, i have seen it and might pick it up if im really bored - infact im quite likely to agree 100% with what he has written - but what i really want to know or see, is if these scientific minds address the issue of why people chose to be delusional, and how we are going to adress that issue.

This fight against fundamentalism is not a biology issue, or traditional scientific issue - its a problem for psychologists, sociologists, historians, economicists and educational issue.

Fundamentalism is the backlash against the modern era, created for the losers who got left behind in a rapidly changing world. In effect, it was created by science and progress, greed and corruption. Its a product of the times we live in in which so much wealth is held by so few, and a backlash against the rapid ambition to make dollars at the expense of personal humanity. Most people don't actually want this at all, and the delusions are accepted and preferred because it provides a safe base to create a meaning to life that doesn't revolve around endless accumulation.

Until people like dawkins realise this, they're all pissing into the wind in the fight against delusion and fundamentalism.

[groverat]

MarcUK:

So the choice is being religious or being a materialistic zombie?

Interesting dichotomy. False, but interesting.

[OfficerDigby]

Dawkins knew what he was on about and proved his genius with the Selfish Gene (1972?).


He was going along fine also with the ideas are viruses idea.


There is also a point to defend proper science teaching from the those that want to distort it for their own religions etc.


However, he has over stepped the mark he doesn't know how the world works and his ideas that all the worlds problems are down to religion are wrong.. I haven't read the book I have seen the TV series.

He thinks problems like Northern Ireland or Israel would not have occurred without religion. Its poppy-cock.
The tribes would have fought but the banners would have not been religious.

He is a classic case of an academic who once he becomes successful thinks he can talk about and solve other things about which he knows little.

[groverat]

He does not argue that those problems would not have occurred without religion, but that those problems are inextricably tied to religion. Those are different concepts.

Dawkins is a proponent of biological evolution via natural selection, do you sincerely believe he thinks that human conflict is rooted only in religion?

[MarcUK]

people only accept delusion when it offers the security and a better sense of reality than reality itself.

It is overlooked that the struggle with religion is not about the religion per se, but the struggle against reality, and for many people who accept the more extreme forms of reliious worship, the underlying problem is that reality for them drove them to mental illness (and I use the term very very broadly) - and the uptake of religion was not about wanting to worship God, or discover truth, but a simple case of the survival instinct coming into play. Frankly if you are on the verge of personal extinction, you will accept any delusion if it allows you to continue living.

From my relatively well off ( i earn a little bit more than a dollar a day ), educated position, its easy to see that people in the same boat, will not have a problem with science, education, philosophy, etc - my basic living conditions are not a fight against survival every day, and I can financially and emotionally afford to explore the finer aspects of sophistication of belief.

But a large proportion of our planet, know nothing of this life, they're born hungry, uneducated, unphilosophised, struggling, they live it 24/7 and they die as they were born.

Reality for them is that they have to abstract themselves from this position to survive another day. The human will is the will to live as long as possible - if there exists a mechanism that allows the disaffected to live, as opposed to die, they will take it - whatever it says, whatever its conditions of thought, or conditions of physical activity. People will accept emotional and physical slavery over death.

Its a shame that within western society, people still accept physical and emotional slavery by choice, but its not really their fault.

What it is - is a damning reflection of just how bad our society is in caring and developing the underprivilaged - and how the ratrace of dollars has broken society's community and left alot of people on the sidelines feeling worthless and hopeless. These people will accept a delusion - because they are doing nothing more than exercising the human will to live - whatever the cost. They'll create a new community - and as with all religions, the abstraction of oneself from reality to alleviate the daily suffering of survival - to have iconography, saviours, ritual, worshipping of the abstract, is little to do with God or truth, but a reflection of ones state of perception of how bad the stack is the world dealt them.

The fight against this wont be won with scientific reasoning, or showing the origins of religious worship to be astrology. These people dont care about this - they cannot afford to. They cannot afford to even consider it, because the thought, starts to unravel the framework they have created that ensures they continue to live.

Science and Dawkins, should realise that to ask people to accept evolution equates to asking them to willingly give up and die. It wont happen. People dont want to feel educated the moment before they die, they want to live forever.

[AsLan^]

There is no need to accept evolution. It simply is, plain as gravity.

If people choose to deny evolution or gravity then that's fine, it's not going to get them anywhere but hey, it's a free world right.

I think Dawkins is actually on the right track, it's not enough to be pro-evolution, because evolution is a fact and being an advocate of a fact is meaningless. Anti religious is the key here and I'm glad that he's taken that approach.

But I would personally do it a little differently. I think if people were shown how truly great we are and all of our achievements were properly attributed rather than to some god, then they could stop putting their trust and faith in the supernatural and start putting it in mankind.

People don't choose religion, it is shoved down their throats, children are told to say than you to god for food that men grew, personal ability is a gift from god, adversity in life is a test of fate rather than directly due to action or inaction on the part of the individual or an antagonist.

Where are the missionaries of the mind to set straight these errors when people ask WHY?

[MarcUK]

People don't choose religion, it is shoved down their throats, children are told to say than you to god for food that men grew, personal ability is a gift from god, adversity in life is a test of fate rather than directly due to action or inaction on the part of the individual or an antagonist.


people do chose religion though, but its a dubious definition of choice, all kinds of things are shoved down our throats from dawn to dusk, but most of us are comfortable, content enough to have the presence of mind to reject it. People dont chose it like I would chose a new shirt, the choice really becomes one of reject it and die, or accept it and live.

thats the crux of the problem, why there are so many people who are left to be in the position of having to make the choice

[AsLan^]

I don't think it's a case though of most people having to choose to accept religion or science. They are simply presented with religion which is easy to understand, and at an early age before critical thinking skills have been developed.

Understanding the way things really work in the world requires thought, and thus the expenditure of energy, with little immediate gain to be had.

People need to be shown that enlightenment and understanding pay dividends over time, in contrast to supernatural explanations which simply offset the immediate expenditure of energy.

The benefits of knowledge need to be spread and the supernatural denounced. There is no room for "you are entitled to your beliefs". Too many people of ability are afraid to denounce religion because they fear hurting the religious persons feelings, or creating a hostile environment, or they don't have the conviction of their own beliefs because of the ridiculous circular logic that was instilled in them at a young age.

People might even be deterred from confronting an openly religious person due to the investment of energy that would be required to deal with the consequences of challenging that persons fantasy. Of course, we must choose our battles, but it seems we will lose the war because not enough battles are being fought.

[MarcUK]

I don't think it's a case though of most people having to choose to accept religion or science. They are simply presented with religion which is easy to understand, and at an early age before critical thinking skills have been developed.

Understanding the way things really work in the world requires thought, and thus the expenditure of energy, with little immediate gain to be had.

People need to be shown that enlightenment and understanding pay dividends over time, in contrast to supernatural explanations which simply offset the immediate expenditure of energy.

The benefits of knowledge need to be spread and the supernatural denounced. There is no room for "you are entitled to your beliefs". Too many people of ability are afraid to denounce religion because they fear hurting the religious persons feelings, or creating a hostile environment, or they don't have the conviction of their own beliefs because of the ridiculous circular logic that was instilled in them at a young age.

People might even be deterred from confronting an openly religious person due to the investment of energy that would be required to deal with the consequences of challenging that persons fantasy. Of course, we must choose our battles, but it seems we will lose the war because not enough battles are being fought.

i somewhat agree - but youre forgetting that if you cannot afford to expend this energy, becuase youre poor, or on the verge of mental breakdown, whatever the reason for it - then you're going to chose religion becuase as you say it offers immediate solutions to very real problems.

As ive said before, the root of the problem is why there are so many people in the world who are poor or about to experience mental breakdown, that they need to turn to religion to abstract their problems away from reality.

Im not totally buying that religion is preached from an early age and turns people into zombies - off all the religious people i've met, its the ones who grew up with it that have a very forward looking outlook on their religion. The real problem within religion is fundamentalism - and these people are typically the people who have experiences some distress later in life and turned to religion to sort themselves out, and because it saved them from looming disaster, they think that this is rigidly, 'the way' and absolute truth, when what it really is, is a stick on plaster over a fatal wound- which they keep supergluing down when the edges start peeling - because they have no choice not to, or they will bleed to death, fundamentalism is the refusal to remove the plaster and get the wound properly seen to.

unfortunately, there are too many people walking around with stick on plasters - and as a society, we have allowed the quick easy approach to become the preferred medicine. There is little cost on anyones part in the short term, and now we are facing an era, where all the plasters are peeling and alot of people are running around demanding superglue.

[MacRR]

I know- nothing like a former gasoline huffing meth addict jesus freak.

[AsLan^]

I know- nothing like a former gasoline huffing meth addict jesus freak.
:lol:

But seriously, sure the poor, starving and oppressed masses find solace in religion, but is the world really composed of poor, starving and oppressed people?

I would say most people in the world are sort of middle class. They've got enough food to eat and enough time and money to have some leisure activities. But why is the overwhelming majority of the world religious?

I really think it has to do with indoctrination at an early age and the lack of any real reason to question their beliefs later in life.

[shetline]

But seriously, sure the poor, starving and oppressed masses find solace in religion, but is the world really composed of poor, starving and oppressed people?

I would say most people in the world are sort of middle class. They've got enough food to eat and enough time and money to have some leisure activities.
Wake up call! Poverty, malnutrition and oppression are rampant. Maybe you aren't exposed to these thing much in your own daily life, but most of the world doesn't live a very comfortable, well-fed or free existence.

That said, the main point I think you're trying to make is still true, that a good standard of living doesn't automatically make religion go away.
But why is the overwhelming majority of the world religious?

I really think it has to do with indoctrination at an early age and the lack of any real reason to question their beliefs later in life.
You could stop just with "lack of any real reason". :) Good critical thinking, something under which religion withers, is a skill that could be taught, but it isn't. Religion fills lots of emotional and social needs for many people, and continues to do so if those people are careful not to think too critically about it.

[MacRR]

I was half assed raised catholic, and I remember being about 8 years old in CCD and asking the nun teaching the class about dinosaurs (yea- I was that kid). I was fascinated watching her work it out- how God put dinosaur bones into the ground to test everyone's faith.

That's not brainwashing kids? Catholic propaganda?

Anyways, I grew up quick anyways, and I don't buy bullshit. not even when I was 8 years old.

But being a kid- having an adult tell you crapola like that- maybe it's not people's fault they were made into patsies from the start.

[BRussell]

Catholics have generally been pretty good on evolution. I'm surprised a nun was teaching young-earth creationism.

[MacRR]

So was I :)

[shetline]

Catholics have generally been pretty good on evolution. I'm surprised a nun was teaching young-earth creationism.
Must be the Rick Santorum branch of the Catholic Church. :)

[MarcUK]

:lol:

But seriously, sure the poor, starving and oppressed masses find solace in religion, but is the world really composed of poor, starving and oppressed people?

I would say most people in the world are sort of middle class. They've got enough food to eat and enough time and money to have some leisure activities. But why is the overwhelming majority of the world religious?

I really think it has to do with indoctrination at an early age and the lack of any real reason to question their beliefs later in life.

are you for real? most of the world middle class? hell even im not middle class.

[MacRR]

Well, it was 21 years ago, and I was 8. was creationism such a hot topic back then?

Did Catholics have a public stance at that point?

Shit- maybe she (the nun) went on to be ted haggard's masseuse coordinator because the catholic church just wasn't doing it for her anymore!?

She also had us drink kool-aid to practice/pretend to go over the eucharist :O.

kool-aid <shiver>



Must be the Rick Santorum branch of the Catholic Church. :)

[kdraper]

But why is the overwhelming majority of the world religious?

I really think it has to do with indoctrination at an early age and the lack of any real reason to question their beliefs later in life.

While indoctrination at an early age is certainly important, I disagree that there is no reason for religious people to question their beliefs. We are confronted with good reasons to do so in daily life.

I think one important obstacle is the idea that God is accurately hearing and considering all of your thoughts. If you think this way, it is difficult to cross many bridges of thought without mentally apologizing and quickly moving on to more innocent avenues, or coming up with a reason--any reason--that your new notion was wrong. Some thoughts are simply dangerous to have, and are best avoided--unless you want to perform the requisite mental situps to explain why it is just not so.

[kdraper]

To follow up this thought: Why then can a religious person break their code and do things they consider wrong, all while God is listening in, but avoid a simple thought advocating the idea of no God at all? I'm speaking of things like adultery, war, stealing. I imagine such worldly sins are mentally accepted as wrong, but forgivable. The idea of disbelieving in God, right in front of God, is a harder line to cross as it would be a very explicit rebellion. You can have adulterous sex and hope for forgiveness, but to reject God entirely could vanquish the forgiving mental safety net.

[e1618978]

are you for real? most of the world middle class? hell even im not middle class.

$8000/year is the income for the average person on earth, if you are above this you are upper class (at least from a worldwide viewpoint). The median income would be even lower.

[MarcUK]

$8000/year is the income for the average person on earth, if you are above this you are upper class (at least from a worldwide viewpoint). The median income would be even lower.

well thats quite shocking, but $8000 isn't alot of money, i'll never be upperclass, just dirty scummy trailer park trash class.

[AsLan^]

To follow up this thought: Why then can a religious person break their code and do things they consider wrong, all while God is listening in, but avoid a simple thought advocating the idea of no God at all? I'm speaking of things like adultery, war, stealing. I imagine such worldly sins are mentally accepted as wrong, but forgivable. The idea of disbelieving in God, right in front of God, is a harder line to cross as it would be a very explicit rebellion. You can have adulterous sex and hope for forgiveness, but to reject God entirely could vanquish the forgiving mental safety net.
Yes, yes, good points. Do you suppose it ultimately has to do with the idea that people like to believe in heaven and the only surefire way to deny yourself entrance to heaven is by disbelieving?

[kdraper]

Yes, yes, good points. Do you suppose it ultimately has to do with the idea that people like to believe in heaven and the only surefire way to deny yourself entrance to heaven is by disbelieving?

Yes. The immediate question is: "Why take a chance? Acceptance is so easy and has everything to gain, while rejection has no clear benefit and everything to lose." It's easy to have that exchange with another who shares your belief, agree quickly on the answer, and wonder why anyone would be crazy enough to decide otherwise, playing chance with eternity for no apparent reason. But it ignores the deeper consequences of being wrong; discouraging critical thinking, and encouraging those who lack it to engage in blind faith, which creates situations that extend far beyond a person's individual beliefs.

[midwinter]

Yes. The immediate question is: "Why take a chance? Acceptance is so easy and has everything to gain, while rejection has no clear benefit and everything to lose." It's easy to have that exchange with another who shares your belief, agree quickly on the answer, and wonder why anyone would be crazy enough to decide otherwise, playing chance with eternity for no apparent reason. But it ignores the deeper consequences of being wrong; discouraging critical thinking, and encouraging those who lack it to engage in blind faith, which creates situations that extend far beyond a person's individual beliefs.

I know that Pascal's wager is how I came to be a believer in the Norse gods, and boy, do I worry a lot less about the afterlife!

[kdraper]

I know that Pascal's wager is how I came to be a believer in the Norse gods, and boy, do I worry a lot less about the afterlife!

Imagine coming to death while chatting on this forum, aspiring to become a philosopher king in the afterlife, only to end up as a Valhalla typist.

[franksargent]

I was half assed raised catholic, and I remember being about 8 years old in CCD and asking the nun teaching the class about dinosaurs (yea- I was that kid). I was fascinated watching her work it out- how God put dinosaur bones into the ground to test everyone's faith.

That's not brainwashing kids? Catholic propaganda?

Anyways, I grew up quick anyways, and I don't buy bullshit. not even when I was 8 years old.

But being a kid- having an adult tell you crapola like that- maybe it's not people's fault they were made into patsies from the start.

:smokey:

For me it was 7 years old (2nd grade), reading my catechism in catholic school, and it's description of Hell. Wow, scarry place, really HOT! This was way before South Park and the "warping of fragile little minds." But something about that vivid description of Hell made me wonder, where EXACTLY was this place, you know I'd like to go there and check it out and see what all the fuss was about, and if this text was giving my fragile little mind an accurate description of said Hell.

Oh, that's right, at that age I had no real understanding of abstract thinking and something called FAITH!

Indoctrination, circular logic, a very long history of belief systems (and so called "improvements" of said belief systems), codification of said belief systems through texts, social grooming, rituals, and ceremonies are all parts of the puzzle. Answering the basic Why? question is also a big part of the puzzle, science only offers the how part of the question, you know the universe appears to have a "life," a "birth," and perhaps an eventual "death." But scientists can't get past the how it all came to be to "start" with, the Why? question.

Religious beliefs are the most organized systems of beliefs carried into (and throughout) our adult lives, the only formal belief system really, reinforced through it's texts, institutions, customs, and rituals. Also for Christianity, God was humanized in the form of Jesus, thus much of the abstract thinking of a god goes away, since "God was made in our own image."

Purpose, meaning, existence, why ask why, when you can just blame God!

BTW, I'm an agnostic, it's a safe harbor in some sense, I don't have to "pick" a particular belief system to adhere to, I don't have to choose who's side I'm on, and I don't care one bit anyone telling me who's side I'm "supposedly" on!

Hope I haven't "warped any fragile little minds!" Since in the end it's basically in the individual's mind to give one's life meaning, to me it's a very personal thing, and thus I don't usually venture into discussions of "God."

In the end it's about philosophical ownership, an individual's investment in said ownership, so that when Dawkins launches a frontal attack on the vast majority of people's "ownership," I'm not sure that's the best way to attack the "problem!"

:smokey:

[shetline]

BTW, I'm an agnostic, it's a safe harbor in some sense, I don't have to "pick" a particular belief system to adhere to...
Atheists, with the possible exception of "strong atheists", aren't picking a belief system "to adhere to" either. To paraphrase a couple of great lines I saw in a different forum...

Atheism is a belief system the same way baldness is a hair color.
Atheism is a belief system the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[hardeeharhar]

shetline,

you are not making a distinction between atheist who refuse to acknowledge that the question of a god even makes sense (I term them strong agnostics), and people who will answer, without consideration, that there is no god, which is a view point of people who 'practise' atheism...

[SpamSandwich]

He was going along fine also with the ideas are viruses idea.

Would the idea of ideas being viruses be an idea virus, or a viral idea?

[SpamSandwich]

people only accept delusion when it offers the security and a better sense of reality than reality itself.

Someone should experimentally raise kids up in a hermetic society based on mutual respect and scientific reasoning with no mention of religious beliefs to see if the age old questions are still raised by the young.

[MarcUK]

would it make a difeerernce?

scientists are asking why
a genuine search is god is asking why.

reliogion is nit typically a genuine search for god

[tonton]

shetline,

you are not making a distinction between atheist who refuse to acknowledge that the question of a god even makes sense (I term them strong agnostics), and people who will answer, without consideration, that there is no god, which is a view point of people who 'practise' atheism...

With all this term-making, I'd call myself a "figurative theist" or a "practical atheist".

I do think God exists, and that God is important though he exists as a concept in society.

No one will ever "see" God or "touch" god the same way we can see or touch our Mother. God will never "speak" to us the same way our mother does/did. God will never type a message on this forum the same way I can.

Yet God's existence as an idea is a very, very real part of humanity.

I'll expand later -- gotta run for the bus.

[hardeeharhar]

tonton, your statement is not a particularly profound one. god is an important human construct. great!

Now where'd I put my remote?

[Fellowship]

There is no need to accept evolution. It simply is, plain as gravity.

If people choose to deny evolution or gravity then that's fine, it's not going to get them anywhere but hey, it's a free world right.

I think Dawkins is actually on the right track, it's not enough to be pro-evolution, because evolution is a fact and being an advocate of a fact is meaningless. Anti religious is the key here and I'm glad that he's taken that approach.

But I would personally do it a little differently. I think if people were shown how truly great we are and all of our achievements were properly attributed rather than to some god, then they could stop putting their trust and faith in the supernatural and start putting it in mankind.

People don't choose religion, it is shoved down their throats, children are told to say than you to god for food that men grew, personal ability is a gift from god, adversity in life is a test of fate rather than directly due to action or inaction on the part of the individual or an antagonist.

Where are the missionaries of the mind to set straight these errors when people ask WHY?


So "evolution is a fact"? What was the date of the transformation from Theory to Fact?

"People don't choose religion, it is shoved down their throats"

That is not true with myself so I believe you are mistaken to make such a statement.

If anything was and is shoved down my throat it is big-headed ego-filled college professors who view themselves as Gods who shove evolution down students throats as FACT

I find you to be completely wrong and deceptive.

Fellowship

[dmz]

How, in the shadow of 20th-century atheism's murdering of 150,000,000 people, this joker can even lift his pen, is beyond me.

No one, but no one, kills as fast as atheists.

[SpamSandwich]

How, in the shadow of 20th-century atheism's murdering of 150,000,000 people, this joker can even lift his pen, is beyond me.

No one, but no one, kills as fast as atheists.

Oh, dear. I feel a massive retaliatory strike coming from an AI poster who shall remain nameless... :lol:

[kdraper]

If anything was and is shoved down my throat it is big-headed ego-filled college professors who view themselves as Gods who shove evolution down students throats as FACT

You must be enraged with what's being taught in churches.

Why be upset with a professor describing what he believes to be true, based on honest-to-God evidence? No honest professor is pretending that science has perfect, unchanging answers to every question, right here and now. He shouldn't even need disclaim his words in such a way; anyone who's been taking science courses their entire school life should already know this.

Imagine if religious teachers were held to the same standards as science professors.

[SpamSandwich]

I say again... Steve Jobs: "Boom!"

[kdraper]

How, in the shadow of 20th-century atheism's murdering of 150,000,000 people, this joker can even lift his pen, is beyond me.

No one, but no one, kills as fast as atheists.

I think God himself claims to be a much swifter murderer.

Murderous atheists (and theists) would be much less successful in their crusades if people were less gullible. These sorts of leaders use religion to exploit people. How do you get a country of Christians to help exterminate the Jews? And why would the Christians go along with it? How many people did Hitler kill with his own hands, and how many were killed by the Christian soldiers at his command?

Hitler (for example), raised Catholic, said plenty of bad things about Christianity. But he never stopped talking about God, or claiming he was doing the work of the Lord. Being a non-Christian does not make you an atheist.

Dawkins deals with Hitler and Stalin (who was an atheist) at the end of Chapter 6 of the subject book.

How does atheism influence people to do bad things?

How many wars have been fought in the name of atheism?

[Fellowship]

You must be enraged with what's being taught in churches.

Why be upset with a professor describing what he believes to be true, based on honest-to-God evidence? No honest professor is pretending that science has perfect, unchanging answers to every question, right here and now. He shouldn't even need disclaim his words in such a way; anyone who's been taking science courses their entire school life should already know this.

Imagine if religious teachers were held to the same standards as science professors.


I know there is abuse in both cases.

That is why we all as individuals must demand integrity in reporting of ideas, facts, theories and beliefs.

Fellowship

[gregmightdothat]

So "evolution is a fact"? What was the date of the transformation from Theory to Fact?

"People don't choose religion, it is shoved down their throats"

That is not true with myself so I believe you are mistaken to make such a statement.

If anything was and is shoved down my throat it is big-headed ego-filled college professors who view themselves as Gods who shove evolution down students throats as FACT

I find you to be completely wrong and deceptive.

Fellowship
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

A large portion of evolutionary mechanisms are well established, and are fact.

There's still ongoing discussion, however, on the various mechanisms through which alleles are introduced to an organism. Also up for debate are concepts related to, but necessarily a part of evolution, like common descent.

[AsLan^]

So "evolution is a fact"? What was the date of the transformation from Theory to Fact?

"People don't choose religion, it is shoved down their throats"

That is not true with myself so I believe you are mistaken to make such a statement.

If anything was and is shoved down my throat it is big-headed ego-filled college professors who view themselves as Gods who shove evolution down students throats as FACT

I find you to be completely wrong and deceptive.

Fellowship
Fellowhsip, you're a nice guy but you are very very wrong. That evolution is titled a theory actually means fact. It's a scientific nomenclature that is used to describe the best explanation we have for a phenomena at any particular time. It DOES NOT mean that it is speculation, guess, or opinion. For a hypothesis to be granted the title of theory there must be overwhelming evidence in its favor.

As for "shoved down your throat". Most of us here in the West were brought up in a household that obeyed christian values, practiced christian traditions, and quite possibly a sizeable majority actually practiced christianity. There are religious holidays such as easter where kids are given chocolate eggs and told as if a fact that jesus was crucified and rose from the dead, and christmas where children are given presents to celebrate the birth of jesus and often reminded of that. If an adult doesn't know the answer to a question, god is often cited as an answer. Children are often made to attend church, there is even special a church for the careful indocrination of children called sunday school.

I'm not sure how I'm the one being deceptive.

[thuh Freak]

So "evolution is a fact"? What was the date of the transformation from Theory to Fact?

Damnit Fellowship, I thought you had become one of the good ones. You still into that shit?

[AsLan^]

Exactly, this is what I'm talking about and why religion must be actively challenged.

Bravo to Dawkins for leading the way!

[groverat]

Atheism must be really really tired from all that killing. Someone should put that Atheism guy in jail.

[Chris Cuilla]

That evolution is titled a theory actually means fact.

Stop saying silly (and incorrect) things like that. It only confuses the discussion (and demonstrates your lack of understanding).

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed.

The falsifiable part here is key. It means that it is possible for it to be disproven. Facts cannot be disproven.

So quit this crap about "theory really means fact". It doesn't...or they just say that it does. A theory is a proposed explanation for a collection of facts. For example:

- FACT: Lots of animal species have similar physiological characteristics.
- THEORY: These species have these similar characteristics because they evolved from one another and (possibly) from a common ancestor.

[AsLan^]

A is A.

I'm sorry but evolution is a fact.

You seem to be confused about falsifiable. All that means is that there has to be some way that evolution could be shown to be wrong, ergo, if we observed spontaneous generation that would prove evolution to be wrong.

It doesn't mean that such things actually exist.

This is in contrast to the supernatural which cannot be proven wrong under any circumstances. There is nothing you can observe that would prove the non existence of the supernatural.

[Chris Cuilla]

I'm sorry but evolution is a fact.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect.

You seem to be confused about falsifiable. All that means is that it must be some way that evolution could be shown to be wrong,

Which cannot be done with a fact but be with a theory, ergo, they are different things.

[AsLan^]

If you take that point of view then there are no facts.

I can only theorize that what I observe actually exists, because even my observations are falsifiable.

The line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise there is no point to discussing anything.

I really can't understand how someone could deny evolution, it's like denying existence itself. It is a well understood, falsifiable, testable, predictable, and reproducible, scientific theory.

That's about as close to a fact as you're going to get because all we have is our observations. Without acknowledging our observations, we have nothing and there is no point to anything.

[dmz]

Atheism must be really really tired from all that killing. Someone should put that Atheism guy in jail.
Well, we Christians would do it if we weren't so darn busy planning our next inquisition.

[Chris Cuilla]

If you take that point of view then there are no facts.

Of course that isn't true. Don't be silly.


I can only theorize that what I observe actually exists, because even my observations are falsifiable.

Now it is you that has the misunderstanding of falsifiable. Your observations are the facts. For example...

FACT/OBSERVATION: The sun is not visible for 1/2 of the day.
FACT/OBSERVATION: The sun is visible for 1/2 of the day.
THEORY: The earth is at a fixed position and the sun must be rotating out of view for 1/2 of the day.

The theory is wrong. But the facts still remain.

FACT: There is a wide diversity of plant and animal life.
FACT: There are many physiological similarities among all plants and animals.
FACT: Genetic mutations occur in plants and animals.
FACT: Genetic mutations are sometimes transfered to descendents of plants and animals.
THEORY: The last two facts are a powerful enough mechanism to result in the first two facts.

The theory could be wrong, but the facts still remain.

I really can't understand how someone could deny evolution, it's like denying existence itself.

Not really. A little humility and open-mindedness might be helpful for you.

[AsLan^]

The fact that the Theory of Evolution is based on observed natural phenomena, has withstood critical examination, and can only be falsified by phenomena that we have yet to observe and have no reason to believe we will observe, has elevated its status to Scientific Theory.

In the natural world (the world I live in), for all intents and purposes, a Scientific Theory is a fact.

You may be interested to read what other people more knowledgeable than I have to say on the matter:

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

I should like to add that I am a very open minded person, but that doesn't extend to denying the realities of the world I live in.

[AsLan^]

Here is a particularly relevant excerpt from the article I linked to in the off chance you don't get to read it.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

[Fellowship]

Damnit Fellowship, I thought you had become one of the good ones. You still into that shit?

Become one of the good ones ;)

Come on buddy you know I love you as much as ShawnJ and Nick.

BR, seg, shetline and the whole bunch.

I am not into any shizzle.

the only shizzle I am in is when I dive into these discussions with my friends :D

Fellows

[MarcUK]

well, it look like the anti-science crew have really come out swinging this time, except in the interlude between the last bout and now, it seems their personal state of mind has become even more deranged. Not only are they proving that they have not had any personal development in understanding the world between then and now, while in the past they could actually throw together an almost intelligent critique of evolution, this time round it appears that there is nothing but an illusionary kicking up of dust - the signs of a disorganised rabble on the verge of personal insanity.

Perhaps saint Dawkins hit a nerve, perhaps its because their cheerleader exposed himself as a gay,druggie hypocrite, perhaps its because they've been playing Eternal Forces, perhaps its the demise of the Gods Own Party, perhaps its the ruling in the dover case

or perhaps its looming at the back of their minds that in a few days time, the sun is about to die and rebirth itself and the whole of the NewTest story replays itself in the sky, where people can observe the phenomonen and witness as fact the astrological foundations of Christianity and intelligent design.

Or perhaps its because that adopting a lie and a false position and forcing yourself to live and breathe it, knowing that you are doing a great wrong to yourself and humanity, ultimately makes you ill and insane.

[BR]

shetline,

you are not making a distinction between atheist who refuse to acknowledge that the question of a god even makes sense (I term them strong agnostics), and people who will answer, without consideration, that there is no god, which is a view point of people who 'practise' atheism...
Right. There are militant atheists and default atheists. I don't believe in god by default for the same reason I don't believe there is an invisible purple unicorn hovering over your house singing Yankee Doodle.

[shetline]

I don't believe in god by default for the same reason I don't believe there is an invisible purple unicorn hovering over your house singing Yankee Doodle.
Damn it! That's what was keeping me up all night. And it doesn't even sing on key.

[dmz]

Damn it! That's what was keeping me up all night. And it doesn't even sing on key.
You know that makes you a replicant, don't you?

[shetline]

You know that makes you a replicant, don't you?
"My mother? Let me tell you about my mother..." :D

[soulcrusher]

In the natural world (the world I live in), for all intents and purposes, a Scientific Theory is a fact.

Lies! This statement implies that there is no progress that can be done in science because all the theories we have are fact and, therefore, true. It renders scientific enquiry and experimentation useless. Why verify a theory if we know it to be true?

The theories we have today are most probably false. Why? Because every other theory that we had in the past has been false!

Is evolutionary theory, as it stands today in every detail, false? Most certainly.

Does that mean that evolutionary theory is as far from the truth as creationism, of course not! Evolution is based on a methodology that historically has shown to succeed in explaining, while creationism is based in the worst possible system for understanding: unjustified belief.

[MarcUK]

fact doesn't mean absolute true.

Fact means that a statement is provisionally true considering the wealth of knowledge that is possible to know here and now, to argue against a fact either means you have exceptional new information and are exceptionally gifted or mentally ill.

Creationists aren't exceptionally gifted, and they hold no new information.

[shetline]

The theories we have today are most probably false. Why? Because every other theory that we had in the past has been false!
What you've just written is false, or, can be taken as true (and not in all cases) only via a parsing literalism of little value.

Did Einstein render Newton false? Newton's physics is still applicable and accurate enough for most purposes that it is still widely taught and widely used.

While it may be a staple of a commonly held parody view of science, science is not a world where everything is in constant upheaval and turmoil, with all of today's cherished "truths" all destined inevitably to become tomorrow's embarrassing mistakes. Much of what goes on in science is simply refinement, extension, clarification, and synthesis of previously held views and theories. "Big" change is generally limited to details -- not if there was a big bang, but how long ago it happened, not if evolution happened, but what made dinosaurs go extinct, etc.

[soulcrusher]

Did Einstein render Newton false? Newton's physics is still applicable and accurate enough for most purposes that it is still widely taught and widely used.

Newton's physics are still applicable, yes, but they are WRONG. Why? Because there are particulars, facts, that do not agree with the theory. An exception to the law makes the law false.

That is all there is to it, if your theory does not explain what actually happens then it is false. Through this process of falsification is that science progresses.

"Big" change is generally limited to details -- not if there was a big bang, but how long ago it happened, not if evolution happened, but what made dinosaurs go extinct, etc.

I am in absolute disagreement with this. Do you thing that the change from newtonian mechanics to relativistic mechanics was a matter of "details"? Do you think that the Dalton's introduction of atomism to modern science was a matter of "details"?

I believe that the two events mentioned above are SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, which fundamentally change the human interpretation of the Universe. It is much more than just details.

[MarcUK]

Newton's physics are still applicable, yes, but they are WRONG. Why? Because there are particulars, facts, that do not agree with the theory. An exception to the law makes the law false.

That is all there is to it, if your theory does not explain what actually happens then it is false. Through this process of falsification is that science progresses.



I am in absolute disagreement with this. Do you thing that the change from newtonian mechanics to relativistic mechanics was a matter of "details"? Do you think that the Dalton's introduction of atomism to modern science was a matter of "details"?

I believe that the two events mentioned above are SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, which fundamentally change the human interpretation of the Universe. It is much more than just details.

Newton's physics aren't wrong, they're just not right under certain circumstances. Just as Einsteins physics aren't wrong, they're just not right under certain circumstances.

pi could be 3.14, which isn't wrong, its just not right under certain circumstances.

Allegorically, Newton discovered pi to be 3.14, Einstein much refined it to many more decimal places, they're neither totally right or totally wrong.

[soulcrusher]

science is not a world where everything is in constant upheaval and turmoil

Funny you say this at the brink of another scientific revolution. Ask any particle physicist what will happen if the Higgs boson is not found next year when the LHC turns on.

[MarcUK]

Funny you say this at the brink of another scientific revolution. Ask any particle physicist what will happen if the Higgs boson is not found next year when the LHC turns on.

we analyze the data and see what we do discover, and see if the model needs refining to fit the new data, its very unlikely that we wipe the slate and start with a new model.

Science isn't just about progress through falsification, its about refinement too.

[soulcrusher]

Newton's physics aren't wrong, they're just not right under certain circumstances. Just as Einsteins physics aren't wrong, they're just not right under certain circumstances.

pi could be 3.14, which isn't wrong, its just not right under certain circumstances.

Allegorically, Newton discovered pi to be 3.14, Einstein much refined it to many more decimal places, they're neither totally right or totally wrong.

This in an oversimplification. It is more like newton saying "Pi is an integer whose value is 3", while einstein says "Pi is an irrational number with value 3.14159...".

Their numerical values might be close but they fundamentally disagree on the nature of the number Pi.

Thus, if you go ahead and measure Pi to be 3.14, then even though Newton's prediction was not far off in its numerical value, he was WRONG because Pi is, therefore, not an integer.

[soulcrusher]

we analyze the data and see what we do discover, and see if the model needs refining to fit the new data, its very unlikely that we wipe the slate and start with a new model.

Science isn't just about progress through falsification, its about refinement too.

Yes, it is about refinement too. And very often the results of most experiments lead to just that.

Anyway, you should have asked. I give this example precisely because not finding the Higgs boson is not something that can be reconciled with the Standard Model by simple "refinement".

[MarcUK]

This in an oversimplification. It is more like newton saying "Pi is an integer whose value is 3", while einstein says "Pi is an irrational number with value 3.1416".

Their numerical values might be close but they fundamentally disagree on the nature of the number Pi.

Thus, if you go ahead and measure Pi to be 3.14, then even though Newton's prediction was not far off in its numerical value, he was WRONG because Pi is, therefore, not an integer.

as you wish, but even if Newton said pi is an integer value 3, then at the time of this discovery, this was still a fact, because that was the best that anyone could do at that time - and to argue differently would be a sign of delusion. No one could then argue that pi was infact an integer value 96 (parallelling religious delusions) because a simple experiment would prove that indeed pi was an integer of value 3. "3" would be a fact - but as i've said, fact does not mean absolute truth.

When Einstein had an insight to measure pi as an irrational number 3.1416 - then this succeeded Newton - but not by falsification, but by refinement - and an experiment of greater precision over what newton was capable of would prove that 3.1416 was the new fact, and the process was 'refinement'. pi would still not be 96.

[MarcUK]

Yes, it is about refinement too. And very often the results of most experiments lead to just that.

Anyway, you should have asked. I give this example precisely because not finding the Higgs boson is not something that can be reconciled with the Standard Model by simple "refinement".

well it could be, because the new particles discovered might be explained by a refinement of the model that fits the experimental evidence, and that might also show that higgs boson might not be discovered until more powerful colliders are built.

[shetline]

Funny you say this at the brink of another scientific revolution. Ask any particle physicist what will happen if the Higgs boson is not found next year when the LHC turns on.
Ask a star-crazed fan what would happen if Angelina and Brad broke up. Some things get blown way out of proportion.

How often and how big constitutes "turmoil" and "upheaval"? I didn't say revolutions never happen in science. As I see it, in about a century and a half, there have been only maybe four revolutionary ideas -- relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, and DNA-based genetics. I can see going a little higher than that, but if you think there've been even as many as dozen "revolutions" over that time period, and that each made everything in their fields before that false, you're buying into mythology and hype.

Some trouble for the Standard Model if the Higgs boson isn't found doesn't sound very "revolutionary" to me, and would hardly invalidate "everything we though we knew". Whatever had to replace the Standard Model had better damn well produce almost exactly the same numbers we get now for the experiments we've been able to do so far, which do agree with incredible accuracy with the standard model.

[franksargent]

:smokey:

I'm assuming everyone is allegorical in this discussion of Pi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi).

Newtonian mechanics are quite successful for most (if not all) terrestial calculations/measurements/numerical models when relativity isn't an issue. About the only terrestial metric I can think of (at the moment) used by everyone on a continual basis is GPS, where the satellite atomic clocks must account for the relativistic effects (they run slightly slower than terrestial clocks).

:smokey: